Beautiful Horizons

Reckless and Dangerous Journalism

In the past the Wall Street Journal's Mary Anastacia O'Grady screeds on Latin America have been amusing for their knee-jerk cluelessness. Now she may very well be endangering lives.

Adam Isacson has more here.

Shame on her.

Que Plus Change . . .

 . . . Que la même chose.

What Adam said here. Every word. he sums it up nicely as well:

The difficulty of reaching verdicts, regular new revelations about the “big three” scandals (parapolitics, extrajudicial executions and DAS), and President Uribe’s ad hominem verbal attacks on human rights defenders combine to call today’s certification decision into question.

Adam is far too tactful, but I certainly understand why. This is a disgrace and I cannot understand how the Obama administration can justify this certification.

An Entire Page!

I have been reading the New York Times since 1980 and until Saturday's paper cannot remember an entire page being devoted to stores from Latin America.

Another Example of Alvaro Uribe's Ugly Side

Adam Isacson points to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe's comments disparaging claims of false positives, i.e., cases in which soldiers are believed to have killed civilians, only to present their bodies as those of illegal armed-group members killed in combat. It's a classic example of his general testiness, especially in light of this comment from Adam:

Colombia’s attorney-general’s office (Fiscalía) was investigating 716 cases, with over 1,000 victims, while the inspector-general’s office (Procuraduría) was reviewing 943 cases involving at least 2,742 members of the Army.

Uribe's number (22 false positives) is frankly, so low as to demean and denigrate the lives of those killed. He provides no basis for his figures, figures which I hasten to add, arms of the government place some 35 to 40 times higher.

As is so typical of Uribe, he seeks to place blame on those who make claims of false positives in order "to paralyze the actions of the security forces against the terrorists." Apparently he believes that the Colombian Attorney General, Inspector general and NGO's are all committing treason. Offere up without a shred of proof.

Utterly Repellent

It's hard not to read this account of Colombian right-wing paramilitary terrorist, Raúl Hasbún in his refuge jail cell and get sickened:

For a guy who brags about killing hundreds of his countrymen, Raúl Hasbún lives high on the government's dime. He sits in a plush cell outside Medellín where he enjoys cable TV, raids his own fridge, can order out for fast food and has his cat to keep him company.

Hasbún, a former banana grower and paramilitary involved in Colombia's right-wing counterinsurgency, was able to score such a cushy arrangement because his words are in demand. Everyone wants to hear how he allegedly devised a method for putting the squeeze on international companies to raise the money to arm the death squads that carried out the gruesome massacres that kept Colombia in a constant state of turmoil.

In other words, he monetized the murder of Colombians, including many civilians.

''I am the one who established the system,'' Hasbún, also known by his nom de guerre Pedro the Pretty One, told The Miami Herald in an exclusive interview in his cell.

It was pretty simple, according to Hasbún. Companies paid three cents for every crate of bananas exported. The proceeds kept the private armies flush with cash and stocked with weapons.

It must be nice to be judge, jury and executioner:

''I killed a lot of union members,'' Hasbún said flatly. ``But I didn't kill them because they were part of a union. I killed them because they were working with the guerrillas or they were guerrillas.''

There is precious little difference between the sort of arrangement Hasbún has and what Pablo Escobar had when he was in "jail." I certainly couldn't imagine a FARC leader in an arrangement like this.

Whining When Leadership Is Needed

Adam Isacson does a great service by not merely linking to, but also translating this article by Colombian journalist, Claudia Lopez about the recent petulance displayed by Colombian Vice President, Francisco Santos with regard to the fact that the departure of the Bush administration leaves the Uribe administration without a rubber stamp bff in the White House.

This part is especially accurate:

Those news make apparent the shameful contrast bewteen [sic] Brazilian and Colombian foreign policy. Thanks to the former, Brazil will become the United States’ strategic partner in the region, and thanks to the second Colombia will be it no longer. Brazil will take on this role for obvious reasons. Because it is the 10th-largest economy on the planet, the most stable and progressive democracy on the continent, the only one with a world-class foreign ministry and president, a player with regional and global leadership.

Brazil's diplomats are without peer in Latin America and arguably among the most skilled and savvy in the world. What's more, Lula had amicable relations with the Bush administration, although they did not rise to the lapdog level that the Uribe administration had with Bush.

She also does a great job of calling them out here:

If you want to be treated like statesmen, behave like statesmen. Stop asking, stamping your feet and threatening. Take the initiative, propose things and keep your word. Develop a bilateral agenda that incorporates both countries’ issues, interests and concerns, and propose specific goals within specific time periods.

The sad thing is it appears that they have no concept of diplomacy. They just want what they want when they want it and then become puerile when they get the slightest pushback.

And the Recriminations Begin

I don't really understand what Keith Stansell and Thomas Howes expect to accomplish by bringing up some unpleasant allegations against their fellow former FARC hostage, Ingrid Betancourt, other than to sell books. As a general rule, I am loathe to criticize people held hostage for some of the petty aspects of their behavior under such circumstances, and Stansell and Howes criticisms do seem rather petty.

If I recall correctly, of the three Americans held hostage by the FARC, only Marc Gonsalves spoke Spanish fluently. I'm guessing that he was also probably more sensitive to the cultural differences between the American and Colombian captives and shows a remarkably different perspective towards Betancourt than Stansell and Howes.

Betancourt did not colloborate with the FARC. She was captive for more than a year before Stansell and Howes were captive. She lost her father while being held hostage. Howes and Stansell should let it go. This just reveals more about them than Betancourt.

The ICC to Investigate FARC Supporters

This is good news for a variety of reasons:

The chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Court said on Friday that he would visit Bogotá shortly to determine whether the court should open a formal investigation into support networks for Colombia's largest rebel group.

In an interview, the prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, said he would travel on Aug. 25 to meet with judicial authorities and officials in President Álvaro Uribe’s government to discuss the rebel group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. 

The preliminary inquiry comes as concerns about the FARC’s support network outside Colombia have deepened.

For instance, the Spanish police arrested a woman last month on charges that she served as a liaison between the FARC’s leaders and its Europe-based members. Officials accused the woman, María Remedios García Albert, 57, of using a small nongovernmental organization to channel money to FARC members.

Among the reasons why this is good news, aside from the obvious fact that funding of the FARC and supplying them weapons keeps them in business, is this important aspect to the investigation:

Mr. Moreno-Ocampo said he also wanted to explore the connections between Colombia’s illegal armed groups and international arms traffickers, pointing to possible ties between Colombian guerrillas and Eastern European arms dealers operating in African countries like Congo.

This particular issue is extremely well-suited to the ICC's mandate and given the nature of the potential crimes to be investigated here, is there any court better suited for this than the ICC?

With every investigation he has initiated, Mr. Moreno-Ocampo continues to burnish his and the court's credentials and credibility. Isn't it time for the hysterical naysayers on the right to acknowledge that some six years after the court's mandate was confirmed with the requisite number of states ratified the Rome Statute and five years after the prosecutor took office, the court is doing exactly what it was established to do and has not become a politicized tool?

Is the Rose Fading in Medellin?

If the subject is of interest to you at all, I urge you to read this post by Adam Isacson about the state of things in Medellin, Colombia. Medellin had been making a great deal of progress recently, but as Adam indicates, there may be a power struggle taking place there among the criminal element of ex-paramilitaries. Adam provides a thoughtful and careful analysis of recent events there.

Some Fallout From the Hostage Rescue

It certainly appears that the FARC - or at least two of its members - was hoodwinked and the leadership is not happy. Once again, it is extremely counterintuitive to think that they agreed to a cash ransom:

"If they did betray the Farc by cooperating with the government in the rescue, then they did not negotiate very well because they are looking at some long prison time in the United States," said Pablo Casas, a Bogotá-based security analyst. "The only way out for the Farc at this point is to take a more political approach to the government, which is why they say they will discuss a hostage exchange." [Hat tip to Greg Weeks]

Meanwhile, Clara Rojas and Ingrid Betancourt appear to have had a major falling out:

On Thursday, the director of Colombia's RCN radio network, Juan Gossain, asked former Colombian vice presidential candidate Clara Rojas about a dramatic and untold episode that allegedly occurred while she was held hostage by FARC guerrillas.

Gossain asked Rojas if it were true that the former Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt had stopped her from drowning her own son, Emmanuel, in a river during a crisis of despair while they both were prisoners of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC.

The reaction came instantly. Rojas appeared surprised.

''Absurd, totally absurd,'' she said.

Her response was only the beginning of one of the strongest attacks she has yet leveled at Betancourt, her former co-hostage and running mate, since Rojas was released by the FARC in January.

This is sad for all involved. I won't criticize any of the parties involved without all of the facts being made available, and it may be some time, if ever, they do come out. I cannot imagine how horrible it would be to spend six or more years in captivity in the jungle and don't feel in any position to judge those who were. Nevertheless, this sort of falling out is disturbing and only serves to raise more questions than anything else.

Did the Colombian government's rescue of the FARC hostages entail a deception that involved the use of the Red Cross's emblem? If so, it may be a war crime under the Geneva Conventions:

Photographs of the Colombian military intelligence-led team that spearheaded the rescue, shown to CNN by a confidential military source, show one man wearing a bib with the Red Cross symbol. The military source said the three photos were taken moments before the mission took off to persuade the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia rebels to release the hostages to a supposed international aid group for transport to another rebel area.

Such a use of the Red Cross emblem could constitute a "war crime" under the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law and could endanger humanitarian workers in the future, according to international legal expert Mark Ellis, executive director of the International Bar Association.

"It is clear that the conventions are very strict regarding use of the symbol because of what it represents: impartiality, neutrality. The fear is that any misuse of the symbol would weaken that neutrality and would weaken the [Red Cross]," Ellis said.

"If you use the emblem in a deceitful way, generally the conventions say it would be a breach. [Based on the information as explained to me,] the way that the images show the Red Cross emblem being used could be distinguished as a war crime, " he added.

Let me be clear: I hold absolutely no brief for the FARC. As I have said time and again, my sympathies lie solely with innocent, peace-loving Colombians trying to live their lives in peace. However, there is a grave and serious danger in using an emblem of an organization like the Red Cross for false purposes. One seriously hopes that the Colombian military did not decide to take a page from it's enemies:

   Both of Colombia's two main guerrilla armies, the FARC and the smaller National Liberation Army, have been known to misuse the Red Cross symbol, sometimes transporting fighters in ambulances. The Colombian government frequently makes international denunciations of rebel violations of international humanitarian law.

If this is true, ten heads should roll for it - and those responsible should do time. Lives could be endangered by such an act.

By the way, Ms. O'Grady, care for a clarification and appropriate condemnation if this turns out to be true? Hat tip for this to commenter JCG at Plan Colombia and Beyond.